| 1 |
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:54:31 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > > It was obviously a semi-trollish comment. |
| 4 |
> > > |
| 5 |
> > Now that's harsh! Although yes I'm sure he was tweaking tails - hence |
| 6 |
> > the "tongue in cheek" smiley. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I didn't intend to suggest that I thought it was mean-spirited. Just |
| 9 |
> stirring the pot. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Guilty as charged ;-) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > Fact is, there are a lot of people out there who hate systemd because |
| 14 |
> > it's been successful, and it's been successful because it sticks to |
| 15 |
> > the nix philosophy of "do one thing, and do it well". |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Now, THAT is a semi-trollish comment if I ever saw one. :) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> That said, you could argue that the individual components of systemd |
| 21 |
> do generally do one thing well. I think the criticism is more in the |
| 22 |
> packaging, and that the components mostly don't interchange with |
| 23 |
> anything non-systemd. Though as we can see from eudev/elogind and so |
| 24 |
> on that isn't strictly the case. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It seems that most of the criticism is about the way it was developed and |
| 27 |
by whom, rather than the merits or demerits of the code itself, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> I sometimes describe systemd as the anti-busybox. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> But, I don't want to derail the thread entirely... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I think you're too late :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Make like a tree and leave. |
Archives